Chandigarh, March 22 -- A Maloya resident, who spent over four years in jail after being convicted in a drugs case, has walked free after the Punjab and Haryana high court held that he was not a peddler but an addict carrying substances for personal use, and had since given up drugs. The high court bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj quashed the charge of drug trafficking against him and held him guilty only for possession for personal use, reducing his 10-year sentence to one year, while observing that "some premium needs to be extended to such addicts who have reformed themselves". As the convict had already undergone over four years of imprisonment, the court ordered his release. The man was arrested in July 2018 after being found in possession of 24 injections, including 12 of Buprenorphine (2 ml each) and 12 of Pheniramine Maleate (10 ml each), in Maloya. In May 2019, a trial court in Chandigarh sentenced him to 10 years in jail, a conviction he challenged before the high court the same year. Claiming false implication, he said he was a drug addict and that Buprenorphine had been prescribed to him by medical practitioners as part of de-addiction treatment. While hearing his appeal in February 2026, the court took note of his claim that he was a heroin addict who had been part of a substitution therapy programme since September 2014, but had dropped out due to withdrawal symptoms. He said the drugs found on him had been prescribed as part of the programme. Invoking its powers under Section 391 of the CrPC, a step not ordinarily taken by superior courts, it sought additional evidence from police and jail authorities. The reports corroborated his claims, confirming his past drug dependence and subsequent de-addiction while in jail. The court said his case ought to have been considered under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which dealt with punishment for consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for "personal use". However, he had been convicted under Section 22 of the Act by the trial court, a provision primarily invoked in cases involving possession for "illicit trafficking and trade". The court observed that his case fell within the ambit of "personal consumption rather than trafficking", noting that the law drew a clear distinction between the two. While stricter provisions applied to illicit trade, the legislative focus for addicts was reformative, not punitive, it said. "The distinction thus has to be on the basis of purpose behind possession," the court said, adding that when drugs were meant for personal use, the offence fell under Section 27 of the Act. The court acquitted him of drug peddling charges, recording that surrounding facts indicated "consumption rather than trafficking". It instead held him guilty under the more lenient Section 27 and awarded a one-year jail term. Holding that treating such cases as trafficking would defeat the legislative scheme, which consciously distinguishes between drug traffickers and drug addicts, the court setaside the stricter charge and ordered his release, noting that he had already served over four years in jail....